DeyDurkie5;1027267 wrote:we wil just agree to disagree with this one...your idea seems to be entertainment should be given. winning is entertainment and the only thing that matters in the nfl. therefore they should be able to fill the seats with that given entertainment.

Con_Alma;1027275 wrote:Entertainment is subjective. The people of Cincinnati are clearly saying with their wallet that winning isn't enough to attract them. Sports is a specialized entertainment industry. If the people don't like what is being offered their money is spent elsewhere.

DeyDurkie5;1027279 wrote:it's not the "entertainment" that is causing them to miss games...it's the ownership of the company. They feel mike brown sucks, and think it's fair to the team to not go to the games. it has nothing to do with entertainment.

Con_Alma;1027284 wrote:His personality, public presence and front office historical activities add to the entire package of the product delivered to the people. He is part of it. If he wasn't, it wouldn't matter. WHo the owner is and what they do doesn't happen in a vacuum.

It's why I said it isn't just about winning.

I don't know what "fair"ness has to do with it. The people owe the team nothing.

Con_Alma;1027272 wrote:I haven't forgotten. In fact I often point to it. I think fan is used too liberally with regards to people who like the NFL. Just because you go to games or like a team doesn't mean you are a fan.

Con_Alma;1027272 wrote:The Cincinnati franchise is seeing that now. They aren't attracting people to the stadium. It isn't the fans that you need.

Con_Alma;1027272 wrote:The fans are blind enough to allways be there. Its the edge sports entertainment dollars that are your growth revenue. Cincinnati is failing with those folks.

ytownfootball;1027292 wrote:Well now this is just chock full of fail so let's dissect it ...



The overwhelming majority I would assume are indeed "fans". That is a simple enough concept considering the money spent to attend and it's not debatable. You don't purchase 3 tickets and take the neighbor guy who would rather be attending the Home and Garden show at the Mall....

ytownfootball;1027292 wrote:...If you can't get the "fans" to show up, as an organization just who the hell is your target market going to be? You have to target a base and the top of the list are "fans". Otherwise you're in the wrong business and a destined to fail. ...

ytownfootball;1027292 wrote:...Yes, but they're not. That's the whole point. It first and foremost says something about the "fans", their dedication and subsequently their apathy.

DeyDurkie5;1027289 wrote:agree to disagree conalma..no point in going on with this

Con_Alma;1027313 wrote:??? Yes. I have been disagreeing all along.

Were you asking me to post that?

DeyDurkie5;1027317 wrote:what are you takling about? I'm saying we aren't going to agree, so lets agree to disagree and drop it

Con_Alma;1027324 wrote:I am talking about the fact that I have been agreeing to disagree all along....from my first post. Didn't you see that?

I don't see a reason to drop it.

LJ;1027299 wrote:/con_alma'd

SportsAndLady;1027344 wrote:Durkie you are forever locked into this conversation. There's no getting out now.

SportsAndLady;1027344 wrote:Durkie you are forever locked into this conversation. There's no getting out now.

wes_mantooth;1027367 wrote:This.

Con_Alma;1027333 wrote:Lol. Just don't discuss it then. That's not too difficlt.

The bottomline for me in this topic is that the responsibility to draw people through the gates exists on the product. It is not on the people, ever.

Rotinaj;1027434 wrote:And the product is good this year. WTF dont you understand?

Cat Food Flambe';1027461 wrote:Just a point for consideration...

If the ownership should be completely divorced from the team in terms of fan loyalty - why aren't Browns fans still rooting for what are now the Ravens?

Con_Alma;1027442 wrote:...not good enough to draw people into the stadium. It's obvious that its' going to take more than a good product. Do you understand that?